UKC

Israel - should the EU sacntion

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 kipper12 22 Jul 2014
As Israel has killed over 500 prople, a fair number civilians, and shelled a hospital yesterday, isn't it about time Israel was sanctioned by the EU.

Surely these acts are not self defence, more war crimes, but Israel has a powerful backer in the USA. Our political masters are frothing at the mouth over the atrocity committed in the Ukraine, but somehow have a blindspot where Israel is concerned.

Double standards, or just different conflicts?
 Owen W-G 22 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

The EU is too much of a pussy even to consider sanctions due to fact that
1. EU is Israel's no 1 trade partner bloc
2. Holocaust guilt in Germany
3. Divisions between EU countries preventing any consensus.

There has been momentum building for boycott-lite, of settlement produce/services but that amounts only to exlcuding settlement goods from the preferential tax breaks that Israel has with the EU. Similarly, EU governments warn businesses from trading with Israeli companies in the West Bank, but again weak.

Any suggesstion that EU downgrades its preferential trading agreements with Israel, and returns to a normal trading relationship is usually met with shrill accusations of anti-semitism, or of Muslim control over EU foreign policy.

Basically there is no chance of EU sanctions against Israel. That country is a law unto itself. The BDS movement is a private one and a citizens choice. However, other than Thyme in Sainsburies, I rarely came across any Made In Israel produce that I would consider buying. Boycotting multinationals like Vodafone or IBM is a non-starter for most people.

Israel will carry on its killing, media spinning, and slow-mo colonisation of any future Palestine without negative consequence from the international community.
OP kipper12 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Owen W-G:

That country is a law unto itself.

Therein lies the problem, it believes it has carte blanche to do what it likes.

One country blow a civlian airliner out of the sky and we cry war crime, rightly so.

Yet another state can do what ammounts to the same thing and gets the go ahead from uncle sam to carry on.
 andrewmc 22 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

> One country blow a civlian airliner out of the sky and we cry war crime, rightly so.

Don't forget the Iranian plane a US warship blew up (while the warship had strayed within Iranian territorial waters) that the US has never officially apologised for...

The world runs on double standards.
In reply to Owen W-G:

However, other than Thyme in Sainsburies, I rarely came across any Made In Israel produce that I would consider buying.

Agree with all sentiments expressed.

I would add that at times the Israeli's have taken to labelling products made on The West Bank - products produced on illegal settlements.

 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> Don't forget the Iranian plane a US warship blew up (while the warship had strayed within Iranian territorial waters) that the US has never officially apologised for...

> The world runs on double standards.

Not really..

We'll have to wait and see.

They did acknowledge they did it and that they had deep regret, and paid damages, so they accepted responsibility.

""...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the Loss of lives caused by the incident…"

To be honest, had the rebels in Ukraine done this from the off and not hindered the investigation I think there would be much less outcry.. you know assist in repatriation of bodies, acknowledge they fired. I think it was probably a similar mistake.

OP kipper12 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

They did, but only late in the day

To be fair from some of the reports of the Vincens incident, it was clear that the US had downed a civilian airliner almost straight away (I think officer from another US ship in area). The Vincens was in Iranian waters and the Vincens did pick up a civilian transponder early on in the incident but failed to recalibrate kit.

The US armed forces tried to cover up at the time. I think this is sadly the reaction of many when faced with a tragedy of such magnitude
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

They denied it but acknowledged it hours later, so probably 36 hours after the incident they said it was them. Think it was pretty clear cut.

Ukraine took a week to admit to shooting down the Russian plane a decade back.
 Mike Highbury 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Owen W-G:

> ...p94

Good to know that you are still thinking of me.

See you down the wall sometime.
 gd303uk 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Owen W-G:
In answer to your number 2 point,
the EU should adopt the Norman Finkelstein approach .
youtube.com/watch?v=Q7tupJRSi7M&

 Indy 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> They did acknowledge they did it and that they had deep regret, and paid damages, so they accepted responsibility.

"They did acknowledge they did it" Are you seriously suggesting that they try and deny that they shot the plane down????

" and expressed deep regret" I think you need to swap the word "deep" with "qualified"

George Bush president at the time of the "incident" said...
"I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Indy:
Wow.. someone's a little bit ranty.. calm down, read what I said, then reply with some logical understanding..

"Are you seriously suggesting that they try and deny that they shot the plane down????"

I'm still trying to work out what you mean here.. quite clearly I stated what I stated.. 'They did acknowledge..'

Now, how in any way shape or form am I 'seriously suggesting' that they try and deny it?

"George Bush president at the time of the "incident" said…" Check your history...

And I'm not sure why its "incident".. maybe if they claimed accident.. but it was an incident, no need for the extra punctuation…
Post edited at 16:10
 BedRock 22 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

Yes, but Hamas should not go unpunished.

"Israel uses arms to protect its people.
Hamas uses people to protect its arms"


 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Regarding the apology.. is that surprising?

Governments tend not to apologise, not for decades at least.

Bloody Sunday?
Armenian Genocide?
Native Indian apology?
Australian aborigine apology?

Clinton also refused to apologise, terms such as 'deep regret', payments, are about as close as you can really expect in the aftermath.
 Indy 22 Jul 2014
In reply to gd303uk:

Powerful guy!

Noam Chomsky is another person worth listing to.
 Skyhook 22 Jul 2014
In reply to BedRock:

Glib.
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Skyhook:

what do you mean?

TBH I think looking at this as who should be punished won't help… it just continues the 'eye for an eye' battle which has been going on for decades. The only chance would be a total ceasefire and blameless transition to a co-existing society or 2 separate states if that can be worked, like in South Africa for example.

 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> I think it was probably a similar mistake.

Hardly, even if it was the anti-Kiev people who did it, which is not proved yet, as the Iranian jet was deliberately shot down by one of the US navy's most high-tech ships crewed by highly trained personnel, which is hardly the case for the other.

Secondly it is quite true the US never apologised, they paid compensation so there is no denial of guilt but they did not have the decency to apologise, and far from being punished the captain and crew still got the normal service medal for the trip.
 Indy 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

You seem to be giving credit to the US for admitting that it shot down IranAir flight 655 giving the impression that if they had kept silent they could have got away with it. There was never any doubt who was responsible.

George Bush.... I assumed that everyone would know I was referring to Bush Snr rather than the drunken, yellow belly, draft dodging coward Bush Jr

Spilling your coffee, tripping on the curb is an incident. Shooting down a commercial airliner flying in an air corridor Killing 290 civilians is not an incident.

Did Ronald Reagan describe the Soviets shooting down of Korean Air flight 902 an incident? Nope he called it a "Massacre"

Full points to the US for hypocracy
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Really?

It seemed quite plausible from what I read, the identification was wrong, but I'd be amazed even if it was deliberate that it wasn't a very localised decision.

But was a 1988 carrier more advanced than the missile which fired last week? If it was the BUK system, as has been suggested

"The command component is intended to discern "friendly" military aircraft from foes (IFF), prioritize multiple targets, and pass radar targeting information to the missile launchers."

Seems similar…

As I said.. get over the apology.. it doesn't happen. Russia with Korean Jet, the USA with the Iranian.. And numerous other times in history..

 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Indy:

How am I giving them credit. I just said they acknowledged it. And yes.. as you say they couldn't.. and neither can Putin here.. yet he is.. or how did a BUK get in the hands of the rebels?

I just said there would be less outcry..

Check your f*cking history... I know there are two George Bush's neither was president at the time of the 'incident'!

Wow.. I'm amazed Reagan (finally you name the correct president), attacked that shooting down of a jet of an ally by its foe.. Gob smacked even.. just incredulous… hold on, going for a sit down...
 andrewmc 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> Regarding the apology.. is that surprising?

No. Disappointing, but not surprising; just like the actions of the EU over the current Israeli actions.

To respond to earlier comments, the US did admit they shot the plane down, but:
a) they claimed for several years the warship was not within Iranian waters (when it was),
b) the captain and crew did not appear to be publicly punished in any way for the incident, and several received medals and honours following the ship's tour, and
c) the US did NOT accept legal liability; they did express regret, and did pay a settlement to the Iranians but explicitly without apologising or admitting wrong-doing.
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Indy:

>

> Spilling your coffee, tripping on the curb is an incident. Shooting down a commercial airliner flying in an air corridor Killing 290 civilians is not an incident.

Are you really this thick?

in·ci·dent
ˈinsidənt/Submit
noun
1.
an event or occurrence.

You are confusing incident with accident… which this could actually be both but spilling your coffee IS an incident.. so is Shooting down a Plane.. any event is.. it is just an event in time.

So are you now saying the Malaysia jet was deliberately shot down as well?
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:
> No. Disappointing, but not surprising; just like the actions of the EU over the current Israeli actions.

> To respond to earlier comments, the US did admit they shot the plane down, but:

> a) they claimed for several years the warship was not within Iranian waters (when it was),

> b) the captain and crew did not appear to be publicly punished in any way for the incident, and several received medals and honours following the ship's tour, and

> c) the US did NOT accept legal liability; they did express regret, and did pay a settlement to the Iranians but explicitly without apologising or admitting wrong-doing.

WHich is all fairly standard.. apart from the medals, but they weren't for that were they? I think they just took the official version of events as an understandable mistake.. which seems highly doubtful as the plane was ascending and not descending..

But re the legal issues.. its the same the world over.. Look at NZ, its finally apologising and righting the treaty of Waitangi and its a huge absolutely massive cost to the Government causing huge financial issues. It's basically why Governments don't do it.. nothing unique to the US.

Have you seen the settlement today against a US tobacco company in a wrongful death suit?

23 billion for the death of one person in punitive damages.. you can understand why Governments world wide like to shy away from actually admitting fault openly.
Post edited at 17:19
 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> blameless transition to a co-existing society or 2 separate states if that can be worked...

Do you think that looks likely now? I haven't looked lately but how many Palestinians have been killed in this last bit of fury, have they reached 600 yet?

BTW, never mind the yanks, Cameron is the most bloodthirsty at present. Hollande is starting to tone down his attitude slightly, but Cameron is as gung-ho as the Israelis. The demonstration in London was far bigger than in France but doesn't seem to affect him, which would seem to suggest that it's only violence that counts, peaceful demonstrations are just ignored.
 Indy 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

>hold on, going for a sit down...

While your at it "Check your f*cking history"

The President at the time the Air Iran shoot down was Bush Snr. The President at the time of the Soviet shooting down of Korean Air was Ronald Reagan

Bush Snr called the US shooting down an incident
Reagan called the Soviet shooting down a massacre.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> but Cameron is as gung-ho as the Israelis.

Come on Bruce, you can't compare rhetoric with sending in the troops.
 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> As I said.. get over the apology.. it doesn't happen.

Bollocks of course it does, even the pope apologised for the Catholic Church's attitude during WW2, as did the Germans, as did certain countries involved in the slave trade. I think the Ozzies did for the slaughter of the aborigines etc. And that's for major events concerning many people, the shooting down of a jet airliner would seem a far easier thing to apologise for.

BTW it wasn't a carrier but a guided missile cruiser only about 3 years old and state of the art for the time.
 Indy 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Do you think that looks likely now?

It was never likely. Holding up the possibility of a 2 State solution has always been an Israeli delaying tactic. In the mean time you bulldoze Palestinian homes, you ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem while building illegal settlements in the occupied territories as quickly as you can.

The international community will of course obligingly look the other way.
 davidwright 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

The BUK system is late 70's early 80's tech, the phased array radar of an AGIS cruiser is more advanced.

The USS Vincences had identified the A300 as civilian. The radar tracking system had also consolidated the track with the identification of the A300 from another US warship. The A300 was never hailed on a civilian frequency using its transponder ID. It was assumed to be military from the get go. The plane never left civilian lanes and never stopped climbing (contary to US claims but backed by US radar data) and was transmitting to air trafic control (in English) throughout.

The other point here is that when the Ukrainian army shot down an airliner in 2001 it was with the same Buk missile that was used here. In that case the missile was fired at a drone, lost the target and then "reaquired" the airliner automatically. Can't rule out a similar incident here with the missile fired at a lower level ligit target
 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Come on Bruce, you can't compare rhetoric with sending in the troops.

Yes and no, if I encourage someone to murder aren't I as guilty as the one who did the deed? Hollande and Cameron are just vying for the place of top poodle to Obama, and Hollande is starting to lose his nerve just a bit, the little he has, as his popularity was already very low. Many around him are very pro-Israeli but it looks like this could turn into a hot summer if he's not careful, which might give him the coup de grace.

It does show that kicking up a fuss can have an effect though, many people seem to have forgotten, especially the young, and kicking up a fuss is a job for young people. Most seem to be keener on their careers and iphones, but who knows iphones can be subversive too
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Bollocks of course it does, even the pope apologised for the Catholic Church's attitude during WW2, as did the Germans, as did certain countries involved in the slave trade. I think the Ozzies did for the slaughter of the aborigines etc. And that's for major events concerning many people, the shooting down of a jet airliner would seem a far easier thing to apologise for.

> BTW it wasn't a carrier but a guided missile cruiser only about 3 years old and state of the art for the time.

Wow.. check what I wrote.. they apologise decades later.. you have picked sporadic examples. The Aussies took decades if not centuries to..
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Indy:
> >hold on, going for a sit down...

> While your at it "Check your f*cking history"

OK Ronald Reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan 1981 - 1989

Bush Senr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush 1989 - 1993

Iranian jet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 July 1988..

So I'm checking… what am I looking for?


This: "George H. W. Bush, at the time Vice President of the United States in the Reagan administration, defended his country at the United Nations by arguing that the U.S. attack had been a wartime incident and that the crew of the Vincennes had acted appropriately to the situation."

Check.. Your.. History...


> The President at the time the Air Iran shoot down was Bush Snr. The President at the time of the Soviet shooting down of Korean Air was Ronald Reagan

> Bush Snr called the US shooting down an incident

> Reagan called the Soviet shooting down a massacre.
Post edited at 18:33
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to davidwright:
I don't think so.. I think they (the rebels) got the id wrong, hence celebrating initially.

As I said it was a f*ck up.. I said that right from day 1.

I'm not sure in the US case. As I said maybe it was a localised incorrect decision. I still don't think it was deliberate from the US Governments part..

I think someone again f*cked up..

As always I sit very much in the middle field, not believing any of the extreme versions. I don't think either plane was deliberately targeted in that way.

Would the BUK still be that technology? I know the US nuclear missiles are mega mega outdated, but they actually quite like that as its basically so hard to hack due to its primitive nature.
Post edited at 18:26
 Skyhook 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

adj 1: marked by lack of intellectual depth; "glib generalizations"; "a glib response to a complex question"
Removed User 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> I know the US nuclear missiles are mega mega outdated, but they actually quite like that as its basically so hard to hack due to its primitive nature.

I don't even have words for this, I just wanted to re-quote it to make sure people saw it. You just can't possibly be serious.
 Jon Stewart 22 Jul 2014
In reply to BedRock:

> Yes, but Hamas should not go unpunished.

Err, I don't think they are, do you?

> "Israel uses arms to protect its people.
> Hamas uses people to protect its arms"

The "Israel moral high ground" bullshit. Have a look at this from the other thread:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=599613566824335
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/03/24/1-shot-2-kills-army-t-shirt...

Face the facts: the IDF is involved in a campaign of racist killing, and they're a lot better at it than Hamas.
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Removed User:
> I don't even have words for this, I just wanted to re-quote it to make sure people saw it. You just can't possibly be serious.

Yeah its floppy disk era.. pre internet..

So totally isolated.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/29/1256250/us-nuclear-missile-silos-us...

There was a 60 minutes report on it recently..

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/60-minutes-shocked-to...

Not sure if you can watch this outside of the US
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-minding-the-nuclear-weapons/
Post edited at 19:42
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Hardly, even if it was the anti-Kiev people who did it, which is not proved yet, as the Iranian jet was deliberately shot down by one of the US navy's most high-tech ships crewed by highly trained personnel, which is hardly the case for the other.

I'd be amazed if it wasn't.

Did you hear the Russians in the UN?

Blaming Ukraine ATC for diverting the plane into that zone…

The rebel forces also tweeted about a successful shoot down at the time…

Then refused hand over of items for recovery initially…

So far its almost certain it was a rebel strike.
 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> Wow.. check what I wrote.. they apologise decades later.. you have picked sporadic examples. The Aussies took decades if not centuries to..

Well it's decades after the US downing of the air-liner, and it was rather more flagrant to say the least - the plane had been identified and another US ship had too. It was either the most monumental cock up imaginable or deliberate. As the captain and crew got medals I'd go for the second choice. It would explain why they didn't apologise too... who know the baby son of a the Aunt of a one time member of Hamas might have been on board making it a legitimate target?

PS. All this sticking up for Uncle Sam won't get you your green card quicker, best get married to a local.
 Bruce Hooker 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> So far its almost certain it was a rebel strike.

That's what Obama and Kiev are saying, does that count as proof?

Why won't the US army ask the 10 simple questions the Russian army has asked them? You'd think they would if they had nothing to hide.
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am married to one…

The son of an aunt of a one time member… I'm not even going to justify that..

US wrongly fires.. no that never happens.. ever..

I'm not defending them, I'm very very middle ground. I'm just not a conspiracy nut.. As I said I think both were probably errors.

I'll ask again.. Did you listen to the Russia ambassador to the UN? He basically admitted they fired it.

The rebels deleted tweets claiming they'd just shot down a Ukraine Jet…

You seriously think it was the Ukraine? Or who?

You seem to be unable to think people can make mistakes.. the US did, at best, with the Iranian jet.. the Ukraine did last time.. the french have shot down a jet of their own.. and I think thats what happened this time…

Getting into all this wacko conspiracy theories is just madness…

occam's razor.. one side has russian BUK's.. one side admitted shooting down a jet at the same time.. one side wouldn't return the black boxes.. one side has gone on the counter attack blaming Ukraine ATC for flying the jet into that zone….

2 + 2…
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You've been reading RT again Brucey...
andymac 22 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Err, I don't think they are, do you?

> The "Israel moral high ground" bullshit. Have a look at this from the other thread:



> Face the facts: the IDF is involved in a campaign of racist killing, and they're a lot better at it than Hamas.

Agree entirely .

The whole situation stinks.

And will continue to stink.



 aln 22 Jul 2014
In reply to BedRock:

> "Israel uses arms to protect its people.

> Hamas uses people to protect its arms"

The new buzz phrase, now being repeated as a fact. Has a pleasing symmetry, easily sinks in, just as easily spouted. Wonder whose spin doctor's came up with that?
 Banned User 77 22 Jul 2014
In reply to aln:
I'm not convinced israel gives a shit…

Look at the t-shirts linked above, there was an instagram of a kid in a rifle sight… these could be easily controlled..

In the last 5-10 years I think we've seen a real shift in peoples views on isreals actions.
Post edited at 23:25
 aln 22 Jul 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> I'm not convinced israel gives a shit…

Most arrogant bullies do their best to look good.

> Look at the t-shirts linked above,

They're disgusting but from that link there's no proof they're being worn by Israeli soldiers never mind sanctioned by the state.


In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> I think the Ozzies did for the slaughter of the aborigines etc.

Apology Transcript
I move:

That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

 Jon Stewart 23 Jul 2014
In reply to aln:

> Most arrogant bullies do their best to look good.

> They're disgusting but from that link there's no proof they're being worn by Israeli soldiers never mind sanctioned by the state.

Sky has

A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) told Sky News Online, the t-shirts were printed on the private initiative of the soldiers and their designs "are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless. This type of humour is unacceptable and should be condemned".

I'm afraid that the soldiers of the IDF want to kill the Palestinian people, wipe them out, by killing the children and the child-bearing women. It's rather disturbing, isn't it?

No one accuses the state of Israel, i.e. the leadership of the IDF of printing the t-shirts. Do you think though, that the state machinery might have something to with the existence of an army of racist killers who want to wear them?
 Banned User 77 23 Jul 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I never said aus didn't apologize.. I said apologies often don't happen for decades at least.. Like the aus/aborigine and the US/native Indian and the Bloody Sunday one..

When you look at the list of airliner shoot down apologies are few and far between.. The only one I could see was the Bulgarian one..

Most end with regret and cash at most..

But anyway this 'well they did worse' argument is childish.. The only good that can come out of this is a ceasefire.. I'm not pro Kiev.. With Bruce it's for or against.. They are unelected.. The government there now should have been some sort of coalition to hold fort whilst proper elections take place.. Not this where we support one side, elected or not..
 Morgan Woods 23 Jul 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I think the Ozzies did for the slaughter of the aborigines etc.

No that was for a legacy of forced removals of Aboriginal children, the extent of which was debatable.
 woolsack 23 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

> As Israel has killed over 500 prople, a fair number civilians, and shelled a hospital yesterday, isn't it about time Israel was sanctioned by the EU.

Flights suspended, that's a good start

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28427236
 Mike Highbury 23 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Err, I don't think they are, do you?

> The "Israel moral high ground" bullshit. Have a look at this from the other thread:



> Face the facts: the IDF is involved in a campaign of racist killing, and they're a lot better at it than Hamas.

Have you seen the tattoos that British servicemen sport or the stupid ties that police officers get made up when on long cases or in squads?

No? Somehow I thought not.
OP kipper12 23 Jul 2014
In reply to woolsack:

This is a response to a round landing near Ben Gurion airport, rather than some concerted action. Intersting response from Israel though, bending John Kerrys ear trying to get flights from the USA resumed.

Maybe it was time that condinued support for Israel was linked to progress towords a two state solution. While support from the USA in particular continues, there is every chance that this open wound will continue to weep.
 aln 23 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sky has

> No one accuses the state of Israel, i.e. the leadership of the IDF of printing the t-shirts. Do you think though, that the state machinery might have something to with the existence of an army of racist killers who want to wear them?

No argument from me Jon, I agree with your post. I was only being cautious in pointing out that the t shirts link above didn't provide proof, you've given some.

 jkarran 23 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

> Double standards, or just different conflicts?

Both.
jk
 Jon Stewart 23 Jul 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Have you seen the tattoos that British servicemen sport or the stupid ties that police officers get made up when on long cases or in squads?

> No? Somehow I thought not.

No, so maybe you can tell me about them? Do they dehumanise a race that we're at war with and promote killing women and children as though the intention is to wipe out that race from the region (there are names for that, they tend to cause a bit of a stir), or is it just general "sick humour" about the job and a degree of bloodlust? I don't really understand your point.

If British servicemen sport tattoos promoting the wiping out of the Afghan race, for example I would be shocked and accept that I was being hypocritical. If they have tattoos that promote killing Taliban soldiers, then my point stands that these IDF soldiers think their purpose is to wipe out the Palestinian people.

Maybe someone's going to tell me that it's satire, that given the anti-Israeli news coverage, these t-shirts were printed up to send up our views of the IDF as racists attempting to flatten Gaza because the hate Arabs, and that they use the Hamas attacks as an excuse to kill as many Gazans (including women and children of course) as they can get away with before the West is forced to withdraw support and apply sanctions or otherwise intervene.
 krikoman 23 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

This is interesting. I think I knew most of it but it's nice to hear it from a Jewish point of view.

youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ&


Any one upset enough can always come to London on Saturday.

https://www.facebook.com/palestinesolidarityuk
 Bruce Hooker 23 Jul 2014
In reply to krikoman:

> Any one upset enough can always come to London on Saturday.


Or to Denfert Rochereau this evening at 18h30 if you are near Paris. This time the government hasn't banned it as it's supported by many political organisations and trade unions, the PCF, MRAP, CGT and even some individual Socialist MPs, but not the party itself to their shame.

Hollande, like Cameron, still supports Israel's campaign of murder, but he won't be there for much longer I suspect. It will be interesting to see if they send along the "casseurs" to cause trouble this time, or the zionists turn up to do the same, they have promised they would use violence against any anti-Israel events, but this time they will have a few more than a few lads from the suburbs to contend with.
 Banned User 77 23 Jul 2014
In reply to kipper12:

>

> Double standards, or just different conflicts?

Do you not think its understandable people are often more shocked or visibly shaken by events at the shoot down than Palestine?

I think people can compartmentalise Palestine.. 'its a war zone it couldn't happen to us' and as terrible as it is its actually not something they feel will effect them. Where as random shoot downs like this can. Planes fly over war zones every day.. there were something like 50 planes through that corridor that day, A singapore airliner just passed.

They could have chosen any plane yet somehow clicked onto that..

I think its those random killings which often affect people more because it could happen to anyone. You can live in a relatively safe country, live a safe law abiding life, be flying on holiday and bang..

I don't necessarily think its valuing any life over another. There's many countries world wide with serious violence/war going on right now which is getting no press at all.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...